Archives For Movie Reviews

‘Johnny English Strikes Again’ is exactly what you would expect a Rowan Atkinson film to be: slap stick funny, quirky, a little irreverent, with a small amount of awkwardness on the side. The film parodies our level of dependence on technology, the power of Silicon Valley elites, and Western Society’s obsession with political correctness. [1]

Atkinson and Ben Miller make an excellent comedy duo. Their reunion for ‘Johnny English Strikes Again’, makes this third film more of a sequel than second. The female leads, played by Emma Thompsons and Olga Kurylenko are in balance with the eccentricities of Johnny English and the serious attributes of Angus Bough.  Thompson’s character is fumbling, frantic and Prime Ministerial, whereas Kurylenko’s character is all about completing the mission successfully.

The third instalment in the Johnny English trilogy takes aim at our level of dependence on technology. Exaggerations for comedic effect are obvious, but within those there’s a serious critique of how easy it is to lose control of information; how data could be compromised or manipulated by anyone with the resources and knowledge to do it. [2]

The film critiques the trust placed in those who live and work in Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley Corporations have access to people’s lives and private information; the kind of access to people only ever witnessed in a totalitarian State. The differences being that these corporations benefit from capitalism and people are willing to give them access to their lives, and hard-earned money, in exchange for a service or a reliable product. Silicon Valley corporations have a lot of power. The premise, and trust placed in these corporations, as worked out in ‘Johnny English Strikes Again’ is something akin to: He, who controls the internet, controls the world.

Leaving behind the second film (‘Johnny English Reborn’) the third movie goes back to the formula of the first and borrows a little from its sequel. This isn’t a bad thing. As one of my perceptive daughters observed, ‘Johnny English: Reborn’ (Johnny English 2) wasn’t as good as the first or third in the trilogy, because Angus Bough [pronounced “Boff”; played by Ben Miller) wasn’t in it. Atkinson and Miller make an excellent comedy duo. Miller’s return as Bough in ‘Johnny English Strikes Again’ proves that leaving Miller’s character out of ‘Johnny English Reborn’ was a huge mistake.

The third film borrows from the second in how it makes fun of the West’s obsession with political correctness. Where Post-Modern sensitivities are excessive, they are justifiably mocked. For instance, in one scene, English is met by an agent who, in answer to a question about acquiring a gun for a mission, said, “Guns? Well, we don’t really do those anymore; we prefer a more diplomatic approach.” (Paraphrased).  In another scene, the ever pragmatic English chooses a muscle car over an “environmentally friendly” hybrid, due to its zero dependency on computer technology.

The film succeeds in applying comic relief to serious criticisms – these criticisms being our dependency on technology, the power of Silicon Valley elites, and excessive political correctness. Johnny English Strikes Again is an exciting film which links up better with the first film than its sequel. Although not absent of one or two ridiculous scenes, the film takes the tension between analogue versus digital and suggests that analogue may still have a significant part to play in an age of espionage and information technology[3].


Notes & References:

[1] Hence the review I’ve written for it.

[2] For example Russia’s alleged interference, and collusion, with Donald Trump and his campaigners during the United States 2016 election; as well as the FBI allegedly pushing their own form of interference, on behalf of the Democrat Party candidate Hillary Clinton and the incumbent President Barak Obama.

[3] The analogue vs. digital tension is reminiscent of Kelsey Grammer’s brilliant 1996 film, ‘Down Periscope.

©Rod Lampard, 2018

Disclaimer: I received no remuneration of any kind for providing this review.

Amazon’s ‘Jack Ryan’ is a fresh creative take on Tom Clancy’s, ‘Jack Ryan’ brand. The story has a standard structure. The plot is revealed as characters move from one crisis to the next. Each episode adds to the next, leading to the narrative’s conclusion.

Casting was on point. Actor John Krasinski (Jack Ryan) plays alongside Australian actress, Abbie Cornish (Doctor Cathy Mueller who takes up a “casual” romantic relationship with Ryan). Wendell Pierce (Robert Zane in Suits’) plays the role of James Greer. All three add to the series and its fresh creative take on Tom Clancy’s, ‘Jack Ryan’ brand. Amazon has been consistent in the temperaments of key personalities, making a deliberate emphasis on Ryan’s, Sherlock-like, ability to see what others don’t, his by-the-book-ethic, and the sage-know-to-pick-your-battles no nonsense Greer.

While Jack Ryan is still a CIA analyst, he’s only an entry level desk jockey. The witty discourse and gracious tension between Ryan and James Greer, has been retained. However, there’s a big difference in tone and the nature of each character’s back story. James Greer is no longer an Admiral. He is fluent in Arabic, and is a backslidden Muslim (he converted to Islam in order to marry his now estranged wife). In addition, Jack Ryan is a scar ridden Marine vet, who wrestles with post traumatic stress and deep regret.

One of the most interesting themes raised within the series is the use of drones against belligerent Islamists. Through a subplot the script writers insert an introspective narrative that is isolated from the main storyline. This subplot explores the relationship and impact of drone strikes on pilots, and their targets. The subplot screenplay is exaggerated in order to make a point. Nevertheless, it presents an interesting talking point about the cost and justification for drone warfare; the unpredictable presence of drones and how that compares to the unpredictable presence of suicide bombers. The threat of a drone attack, anywhere and everywhere, might be a necessary deterrent to people who make the West their enemy[1].

One of the most noticeable aspects of Amazon’s ‘Jack Ryan’ series is the transformation of James Greer. Greer has been politically sanitized. Rewriting Greer as a convert to Islam and removing him from his key role in the United States Navy “liberates” him from the American military industrial complex. Add to this the noticeable anti-American statements in the dialogue of both protagonists and antagonists; the anti-American lens is visible and provocative. The take away impression is that Greer is a disgruntled CIA officer, who’s patriotism is first to himself, and secondly to Islam.

While many may applaud the subtle promotion of Islam as “the religion of peace”, some may take issue with how the screenwriters have not just demoted, but removed a beloved African-American character from his position in Ryan lore. Greer, no longer being an Admiral, is one of the major drawbacks of the series, and is, in my opinion, a serious flaw in the redesigning of the ‘Jack Ryan’ universe. Though, Wendell Pierce plays Greer well, his task isn’t easy. Greer has been robbed of his cautious patriotism, pro-American dedication and high position of authority, as drawn out by James Earl Jones in ‘Hunt for Red October’, ‘Patriot Games’ and ‘Clear & Present Danger’.

The less generous and more astute Western viewer wouldn’t be entirely wrong to see Amazon’s remake as outright propaganda against an alleged Islamophobia in the West. If standing against fundamentalism and prejudice was one the hidden aims of the ‘Jack Ryan’ series, this revision of Greer raises questions about what Amazon was thinking when it decided on fundamentally changing James Greer. If “racism” was a core issue being discussed, why was an African-American character removed from his privileged and respected position within the ‘Jack Ryan’ universe? Was Tom Clancy’s, Greer not worthy enough, or simply not minority enough?[2]

On the whole, Amazon Prime’s ‘Jack Ryan’ has the makings of a decent series. The cast is on point and the crux of Clancy’s brand remains intact. The storyline is engaging and for the more discerning, the ideological lens can be easily filtered out. Audiences are patient and will be generous in how the series takes Greer from a sharp minded naval veteran and Western patriot to a conflicted, weary American, who is committed to himself first and Islam second. Unfortunately, the compromises and revisionism may sabotage the shows future as it further alienates an audience, already growing tired of being bullied and misrepresented by Hollywood. An audience fed up with being force-fed conformism, through Hollywood’s self-styled piety, anti-Trumpism, appeasement of modern liberalism, and the sugar-coated half-truths and lies which tend to go along with it.

Furthermore Amazon’s ‘Jack Ryan’ seems to provide further proof that parts of the West are funding their own cultural suicide[3]. The series tip toes around serious concerns of many in the West. This is displayed in one episode, when those concerns are dismissed and discounted as “racism” by Greer. It’s for this reason that season one comes across as apologetic towards Islam, and in parts, hostile towards the West. The series stumbles drunkenly between speaking truthfully about Islam and promoting popular myths, such as perpetuating the idea that Islam is a race, that Islam is completely compatible with healthy Western values, that Islam is “the religion of peace”, and that the fault with Islam lies with fundamentalists (both external and internal), who are out to taint, abuse or misuse its ideology.

I’m keen for the next series, love the cast, but was disappointed and frustrated at what can only be described as Amazon’s (if not the screen writer’s) own strange case of Stockholm syndrome. While the crux of Clancy’s brand remains intact, Tom Clancy’s, ‘Jack Ryan’ has been rebranded by Amazon to be more palate worthy to an oppressive politically correct culture. Season one is pro-Islam, and in parts anti-American. It’s narrative and dialogue may only alienate a large majority of Clancy’s fan, forcing them to tune out and become entrenched in the very thing the show’s creators may have been trying to address. Season two looks set to involve Russia. Given the political climate in Hollywood since November,  2016, one can only hope that when it comes to the screen play, plot and storyline, cooler heads will prevail.

 


Notes:

[1] Just as society doesn’t know where or when a fifth column of Islamists might blow themselves or others up, Islamists don’t know where a drone will pop up next to them

[2] Has Amazon sold James Greer off; using the character to sell an idea of Islam that differs from the reality?

[3] Season one comes across as too anti-American. The screenwriters seem to have done their best to be sympathetic towards Islam, for fear of offending Muslims, while being inconsiderate of its Western audience. Islam is treated like a victim of oppression from fundamentalists[3] in the West and fundamentalists within its own ranks. There’s an impression that the screen writers are seeking to lull people into a false sense of security in its pointless attempt to separate political Islam and Islamic ideology from “the religion of peace”.

The film, ‘Reign Over Me’ (2007), written and directed by Mike Binder, is, without a doubt Adam Sandler’s best movie to date. I’ve seen most of his films, the most recent being ‘Sandy Wexler’ (2017) and ‘The Week Of…‘ (2018). By comparison the only other films that might come close are, ‘The Wedding Singer‘ (1998), his remake of ‘Mr. Deeds‘ (2002), ‘Bedtime Stories‘ (2008) and ‘Pixels‘ (2015); but even those don’t achieve what ‘Reign Over Me’ does, or go where it goes.

Sandler’s character, Charlie Fineman, is a widower who looks a lot like Bob Dylan in his early days. Fineman is a dentist by trade, and an apartment dwelling hermit, living in isolation within New York City, who suffers from post-traumatic stress and depression. Sandler’s signature, unpredictable outbursts, are reminiscent of  ‘Happy Gilmore‘ and ‘Anger Management’, though this behavioural similarity exists, it fits perfectly with the circumstances, making Sandler’s portrayal of the grief-stricken Fineman, not only believable, but in my opinion, Oscar worthy.

At the centre of the story-line line are events that took place during September 11, 2001.The film approaches this subject with sensitivity. Avoiding the politics the screenwriters look past conspiracy theories, however, what is glaringly absent is any discussion about Islamism or Islamic terrorism. In a lot of ways this is assumed.

On balance, the film does dedicate a scene to some news articles, albeit ones that are discussing America’s response. I have no real issue with this, for the following reason: The screenwriters are respecting their audience by not spelling out the obvious. I have huge respect for directors and writers who do this. Within the context of ‘Reign Over Me‘, the strategy is understandable. It keeps the focus of the audience on Charlie Fineman’s journey.

In addition to Sandler’s brilliant portrayal of a forgotten victim of September 11, both Don Cheadle (of Hotel Rwanda fame) and Liv Tyler, add their own style and bring to the film a warmth, juxtaposed with contrasts. Cheadle is Sandler’s college room-mate; also a dentist and extremely successful in his own right. Cheadle’s character (Alan Johnson) is aware of Fineman’s tragic past, but had lost contact with him over the years. Johnson has his own issues, which all start to come to bare, after randomly crossing paths with Fineman in the street. Johnson seeks to reconnect with Fineman.

Not completely aware of Fineman’s suffering, Johnson quickly recognises the pain his friend is suffering with. He begins to try to help Fineman. This creates tension between Johnson and his wife, and a series of misunderstandings with an ever suspicious Fineman.

Fineman wants no help, only later choosing to see Johnson’s long-term friend and pyschologist, Angela Oakhurst (played by Liv Tyler). Oakhurst works to bring Fineman to a place where he can address the past and his own brokenness, in his own time. Cheadle’s performance keeps the film moving along, perfectly complementing Sandler’s. Liv Tyler compliments Cheadle. The perfect casting circle is made complete when Donald Sutherland turns up in the role of Judge Rains.

The film comes to a close with Fineman’s in-laws trying to speak with him. Fineman breaks downs, becomes violent, and as a result is held in custody for psychological evaluation. As Rains becomes aware of Fineman’s emotional and psychological state, he sees straight through the opportunistic lawyer representing Fineman’s in-laws. With Solomon-esk wisdom Rains outmanoeuvres the lawyer, making it clear that what he has in Fineman is a forgotten victim of September 11, 2001, who deserves a chance to be heard, helped and respected.

Reign Over Me‘, does have some unnecessary language and some interesting sub plots. Those side plots wind up coming together in the end. Though they seem to detract from the film at first, as the story progress, the genius of their inclusion in the film  becomes clear. The sub plots are used to fortify the audiences cheering in the end, through their desire to see Fineman heal and overcome the obstacles forced upon him.

The film isn’t complete without the impressive soundtrack, of which the stand out song is Eddie Vedder’s cover of The Who’s, ‘Love, Reign O’er Me‘ and The Fray’s, ‘How to Save a Life’.  The live and studio versions included; Vedder’s performance, as far as I have heard, is his best vocal work in a song.

As far as art and theology goes, ‘Reign Over Me’ is rich in metaphor. What I see in ‘Reign Over Me‘ is God’s redemptive love – displayed in the film by Cheadle, Tyler and Sutherland’s characters. They fight for Fineman, yet still place an emphasis on him taking responsibility for his own actions. Fineman was empowered, but he still had to decide to respond to the love and help (salvation – grace) he was given.

Since the theme of God’s redemptive love is part of a lot of current discussion, the metaphors are worth noting. The freedom we find in God’s redemptive love is not a “freedom” that is said to be found in human love. For Fineman, human love was not to be trusted. Such love is at best optimism, at worst morbid existential navel gazing and/or veiled self-centred ambition. God’s love draws us out of ourselves in the form of His gracious Word spoken to humanity, which is both invitation and command (Jesus Christ and Covenant). We are drawn out of ourselves to be free for God and our neighbour. Such freedom comes with limitations.

I seem to be on a roll with recommending and reviewing art that, to me, is written, for the broken, from the broken, to the broken. ‘Reign Over Me‘, in my opinion, fits this category like no other film I’ve seen.  It hits at our grief, the lies we tell ourselves and the traps we fall into because we fall under the radar of complacent and dismissive family members, who, in overlooking the complexities of our brokenness, can seem to demand more than we are ready to give; simply because we don’t know how, or don’t yet have the strength to give it. ‘Reign Over Me‘ is an honest prayer-filled, heart-wrenching scream that meets with what Lacey Strum wrote, when summing up her reasons for screaming in songs:

‘Like ‘emotional vomit’, lyrics about ‘horrible abuse, if sung honestly, must be screamed…Screaming was my natural response to injustice… When I started writing music with screaming in it, the point was to hit someone back… After God rescued me, however, I found a purpose for my screaming: to speak truth over the lies in people’s hearts. Lies like the ones I believed about myself when I wanted to die.’ – (Lacey Sturm, 2014 The Reason, pp.77-82)

Let there be light. Inhaled grace ignites.

 


Disclaimer:

I did not receive any remuneration for this review, in any form.

Review: Captain Fantastic

January 20, 2017 — 3 Comments

captain_fantastic_posterThe plot of Viggo Mortensen’s latest film, Captain Fantastic, revolves around the character development of off-the-grid homeschoolers. It is a film full of extremes and contradictions.

Mortensen’s character, Ben Cash, along with his wife, Leslie, live in a well established forest dwelling with six of their kids of varying ages. It takes about ten minutes, but the audience soon finds out that Ben’s wife is absent. Leslie suffers from severe depression and has been away receiving treatment for it.

The opening scene shows the eldest son covered in mud, jumping out of the foliage to catch a deer. The scene then shows him slicing its throat. This is quickly followed by an informal introduction to the Cash family, as each child emerges from behind trees and shrubs. It’s soon established that this hunt was part of a rite of passage. Having successfully completed the hunt, Cash “christens” his eldest son a man.

Cash runs a regimented homeschool routine. Each child participates in the equivalent of rigorous military grade “training’’. In one scene Cash is shown abseiling a steep cliff with all six kids in tow. When one of the older boys slips and slams his right hand against the rock wall, Cash forces him to keep climbing. Once at the top all children are shown shivering and exhausted.

Though Cash is himself well-educated and fair, his homeschooling technique and lifestyle combine to create a unique homeschool situation.

When Cash receives news that his wife has committed suicide, Cash, due to threats from his father-in-law, decides not to attend her funeral. It isn’t until his kids remind him of what they stand for as a family; of what he has taught them, that Cash decides to “stick-it-to-the-man.”

This triggers a road trip that reveals the conflicted attitudes wider society has towards homeschooling. Despite Cash’s eldest son gaining entry into every top Ivy League university in the United States, his sister challenges the benefits of home education, particularly when you don’t really have a house to call a home. His father-in-law, though a loving grandfather, struggles to hide his deep contempt for Cash’s homeschooling, which is only complicated further by grief over the death of his daughter.

Through encounters on the road trip, the family discovers social gaps in their learning. This leads to a deep introspective reflection by Cash on how much their decisions might have contributed to his wife’s depression and ultimate end. Cash is slowly awakened to the fact that his and his wife’s extreme lifestyle, and the homeschooling that accompanied it, while successful, isn’t as perfect as he had come to believe.

Captain Fantastic doesn’t hide its ideological influences or its contradictions. In one scene, after visiting a bank, we witness the family discussing their rule that, ‘’we don’t fun make of anyone. Not even fat people, only Christians’’.

In another scene, we’re shown Cash receiving money for homemade products that he had been sold on consignment at a local store. Yet, in another we’re shown Cash ridiculing capitalism to his kids. There is an inescapable irony when a man with the last name Cash, decries the evils of capitalism, having himself just benefited from capitalism.

This is only heightened by further extremes. Cash fakes a heart attack in a supermarket to distract staff so his children can carry out, what was called “operation free-the-food”. Then at a nearby park, Cash rewards the kids and dedicates the spoils to his leftist idol, and modern liberal, Noam Chomsky. Something Cash later justifies, when his father-in-law calls him out on it, as ‘’training’’.

For me, the contradictions and intenseness of the story make it profound, not loveable. There is a pretentiousness that permeates the selective tolerance encountered from certain groups and individuals in Western society. The point being that Cash, while pointing to the extremism he claims to see in others, fails to see his own.

One area where this is highlighted is in how well-read the children are. Yet, there is no real mention of them ever having engaged the Bible let alone picked up, or had their father assign to them a book on 2000 plus years of Judeo-Christian theology.

There is also the unchallenged promotion of Buddhism as being a superior “philosophy” because it “is not an organised religion” (Quote/unquote).

We’re expected to feel sorry for Cash and applaud him, as he and his kids burst into the colourless Catholic Church service in brightly coloured clothes. Then we’re encouraged to empathise with Cash as he interrupts the service. In protest against what he sees as an injustice carried out by ‘’the-man”, he reads his wife’s will out loud to the congregation stating that she was a Buddhist, and would not want to be farewelled under this superstitious, extremist religious ‘’oppression.’’

The audience is blinded by the dysfunction on display, long enough to keep them from sighing with those at the end of Cash’s verbal whip lashing. There is no tolerance shown to other grieving relatives, including Leslie’s parents. There is no compassion for dialogue or serving others. The closest we come to this is Leslie’s, ‘’obedient’’ mother, who is made to look aloof, as someone oppressed under the thumb of patriarchy.

The supposed Christian extremism is placed against Cash’s own extremist lifestyle; one that leads Cash and his kids to dig up their mother’s body, and then travel back to the wilderness where they cremate her and dance around the pyre performing the Guns ‘N Roses, song ‘Sweet Child O’ Mine’.

While some aspects of Captain Fantastic resonate fairly with the homeschool journey, its extremes are not what homeschooling actually looks like.

Captain Fantastic portrays homeschooling in all its positive tension. Cash has taught his kids well. They’re disciplined, free thinkers who are intelligent and healthy. However, Captain Fantastic also plays into the abuse of extremes.  Its plot quietly rides the anti-socialization myth about homeschooled children and because of this there is a sense that the kids are deliberately portrayed as being socially awkward.

The context of the children’s homeschooling makes this forgivable, but in the end, it doesn’t completely cover up the subtle support this lends to anti-homeschool advocates.

Yet, Captain Fantastic isn’t as iconoclastic as it first appears to be. What is on the surface isn’t necessarily what is underneath.

Here Hollywood is displaying the dysfunction and dissonance in those who advocate an alternative society; who vomit slurs and contempt at the very society they benefit from, without really acknowledging that the same society they ridicule, also protects and allows them the freedom to ridicule it.

In this way, Captain Fantastic exemplifies G.K Chesterton’s statement,

“Christianity is the only frame for pagan freedom”. (Orthodoxy, 1901)

and Michael Horton’s view that,

‘Without a serious recognition of original sin, we can easily become passive pawns in the game of dictators and democrats alike. It is the doctrine of human perfectibility that has brought tyrants to the world stage with the worshipful applause of the masses, but the biblical teaching awakens us from our moralistic slumbers, identifying God as the only reliable object of our faith’[i]

[Disclosure: no payment or other incentives were received for writing this review]


Sources:

[i] Horton, M. 2008 Christless Christianity, Baker Books

Captain Fantastic is a Matt Ross film, 2016 Bleeker Street Productions

 

GB 1Ghostbusters along with Star Wars IV, is one of the movies, that as a kid, I remember watching over and over again. I’d fast-forward the VHS tape past the opening scene in the library and go straight to the title. It was part “skip-the-scary-bit” and part, just get me to the Ray Parker Jr, theme song.

As far as the remake goes, each of the main actresses were convincing enough, but they had big shoes to fill. The pressure on them to meet such a high standard would have been enormous. Taking all this into consideration it’s not a really bad film.

Best expressed through the general response of my daughters: “the movie was okay. I liked the gadgets, but there was not enough guys, and they made Chris Hemsworth look dumb.”

Or best summed up by Richard Lawson in his review for Vanity Fair:

‘Ghostbusters is a flat, occasionally charming disappointment. While certainly funny in parts, Paul Feig’s much-debated reboot can’t find its groove…There are brief highlights [but the] film is largely an uninspired slog, everyone doing their best to get to the end without screwing things up too much’ (source)

I had my own thoughts on it, so here’s a short, 16 point review:

1. Cerebrally effortless, fun movies, do exist.

2. Ghostbusters can fit all genres. If you liked The Golden Girls this one’s for you – (minus the humour of Estelle Getty)

3. If you’re obsessed with the Ghostbuster movies, then this is an edition that’ll uniquely sparkle in any pristine, shrink-wrapped, for-display-only, collection.

4. If you like to see men, particularly Australian men, portrayed as dim-witted buffoons, then you’ve picked a winner.

5. If you’re ideologically bent towards supporting the emasculation of a classic, it’s for you, but in answer to the question “who ya gonna call?” – perhaps, first, call a therapist, not Ghostbusters. #justsayin

6. Crude statements about how a woman’s anatomy works, no matter how subtle, doesn’t communicate well for any actor selling a story to a wider audience, outside the teen angst bracket.

7. The storyline was strong enough to withstand the small amount of innuendos.

8. Overreaching in order to empower feminism disempowers feminism (and almost squeezes the life out of everything it touches).

9. Outside the Gilmore Girls, I’m not a big fan of Melissa McCarthy’s later work. (You deserve better, you can do so much better because you’ve done so much better).

10. Hollywood peaked in 1984. It’s been on a slow downward slide since. It seems to have literally run out of really cool, original ideas.

11. Bill Murray is still one of the coolest comedians alive, and Ernie Hudson must be part Vulcan, he’s hardly aged at all.

12. Chris Hemsworth, Australia thanks you for Thor, but we’re pulling faces and scratching our heads over this one, mate.

13. Hollywood is still capable of making a comedy without copious amounts of swearing or sexual innuendos [thumbs up]. It’s the genius in the legacy of Dean & Jerry, the Dick Van Dyke show, Mchales Navy, and Hogan’s Heroes.

14. Ecto-1 remains one of the coolest pop culture cars to have ever been created. With the ban on the General Lee, Ecto-1  moved into the number 4 slot, just under the A-team’s GMC van, KITT & the Delorean.

15. It doesn’t matter how awkward a movie might seem, gizmos and gadgets always make it better.

16. The modern liberal quest for what it, and it alone, determines to be tolerance and equality, creates inequality. In well-timed humour, on screen chemistry and one-liners, this reboot of Ghostbusters is not even close to being equal to its predecessor.

Does the movie speak to it’s audience and Ghostbusters fans? Yes, sometimes.

Does it do anything for feminism? Yes, however not in the way I suspect that it might have been intended. It shows that the frown of feminist idealism is kryptonite. That it’s misandry and overshadowing hypocritical disapproval of men, is toxic. Feminism is fundamentally about empowering women to be as equal-in-value as men. Any medium that betrays this platform rests not on talent, wit and moxie, but on a destructive ideology that perverts feminism, and clouds its positive achievements.

The absence of Ivan Rietmann and Dan Ackroyd is noted. Although, Ackroyd, Hudson and Murray make a cameo appearance, they’re not credited as being directly involved in the remake, which might explain the movie’s awkwardness. The brilliance of the first film was its disciplined balance between the serious and the silly. The retake barely seems to attempt to do the same. Paul Feig (Director/Writer) and Katie Dippold (Writer) could have made the story line deeper and tapped into the tension Reitmann maintained. It’s not clear why they didn’t choose to go in this same direction.

Putting the apparent hi-jacking of Ghostbusters by feminist idealism aside. Dedicated fans of the franchise might not be as thrilled as the fans of Batman were with Nolan’s trilogy, or Bay’s Transformers, however, they’ll probably be more forgiving. This is because Ghostbusters, the reboot, isn’t just a remake. Its in-part, an interesting retake on the whole Ghostbusters story.


Note: Thoughts expressed here are my own. I received no payment of any kind for this review.

Trailer: Ghostbusters, 2016 Sony Pictures

GogglesHere is one the best defences of reading and old-fashioned, elbow-grease research, that I’ve heard:

“You see, you use a computer, you click on the word, ‘ant’, you get the data, fine. You pick up book and leaf through the pages to find the ‘ant’, you’re going to bump into a saint, an admiral, a poet, a town in Connecticut […] You’re going to learn something outside of the assignment, just because of your own undeniable and most valuable curiosity. You’re going to see a word and you’re going to jump on it. Or its going to jump on you. Then you have it forever.”
(Jack Marcus, “Words & Pictures,” 1:31-1:133)

These are not the words of a troglodyte. They’re the words of a once passionate teacher; a writer who’s finding his way back through the fog thickened apocalypse of his own undoing. The story follows the life and slow redemption of Jack Marcus. Self-medicating his problems with Vodka, the story hints at a long abuse of alcohol and his own alcohol induced abuse. It’s a problem threatening to capsize what’s left of his life.  Marcus’ talent suffers. His relationships and the quality of his work careens close to the edge; the precipice of “beyond repair.”

This paragraph occurs late in the movie. With swaggering courage, Marcus emerges from the fog of alcoholism that has numbed him to feeling  and seeing the richness of his world. His talent, once bound, is gradually reawakened.

Could this be a long metaphor for a shorter one? That, perhaps, the ease of Google has replaced the adventurers goggles.That which can only be discovered through them is missed. The high road of adventure and encounter is shortened to the instant mechanic of a click.

Google search

What we find are suggestions of a system. What we see are paradigmatic projections. Don’t read me wrong, Google can be an adventure. The problem exists when, like Wikipedia, Google search becomes the only resource for research, the only source of adventure.

It’s where  Marcus’ words find their relevance and as such, come to life.

“Pick up a book and leaf through the pages […]You’re going to learn something outside of the assignment. […] You’re going to see a word and you’re going to jump on it. Or its going to jump on you. Then you have it forever”

 


Trailer: Words And Pictures

Related post: Answers According to … 

First image is mine.

Risen PromoIf the trailers are to be believed, 2016 looks to be a big year for films.

These two, in particular, stand out. ‘The Young Messiah’, featuring Sean Bean – based on Anne Rice’s book ‘Christ the Lord‘ (Indie) and ‘Risen’, featuring Joseph Fiennes (Sony Pictures).

Joesph Fiennes’ performance as Martin Luther in ‘Luther (2003), buttressed by screen legend, the late, Sir Peter Ustinov, who played Prince Fredrich The Wise, was, in my opinion, outstanding. Whilst Sean Bean’s performance in the Napoleonic War series Sharpe endeared my wife and I to him as an actor, my theological curiosity leans me towards seeing how the story-line of the Fiennes’ film plays out. As a side note, the soundtracks for both films sound impressive. John Debney (Passion of the Christ) for The Young Messiah and Kai Rosenkranz for Risen.

Whether you’re fans of interpretations of Biblical stories on film or not, if you’re like me, they’ll at least kindle a cautious intrigue. Especially in how modern day (post-modern) storytellers provide artistic commentary on the context of the bible and the truths its authors painstakingly proclaim to have witnessed. In this case the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Along with seeing life being brought back into this genre.On a mainstream level, it’s encouraging to see well established actors willing to associate, accept and take an interest in playing such roles. That is as long as the filmmakers take the responsibility of their task seriously. Taking care in how they present the theology and handle the history; learning from past attempts, by doing their best to avoid the kitsch and questionable theology, that finds a good portion of these films being too easily labelled as the cheap propaganda of American Evangelicalism or a product of Hollywood’s nascent Christophobia [i].

It’s early days, but these two films show promise. They both suggest a thought-provoking and authentic perspective, thus avoiding the impression that they’re turning a serious message into simple fluffy religious entertainment.

The Young Messiah: Official FB Page

Risen: Official FB Page (worth a look)


[i] Term found in Marvin Olasky’s, ‘Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon’ (p.66)